No-one likes a military leader with a confidence problem.

The moral of the McChrystal story is you shouldn’t open our mouth within earshot of a reporter. The fact that the General knew he was complaining to a reporter makes his lapse in judgment ever more egregious. Yes, military leaders have the right to their own opinions, but not to their unhindered expression. Sad but true. For a general to let off steam pubicly is to invite unrest among those lower down the military food chain, disrupting his command. He must lead by example. For McChrystal to let fly as he did cost him his job because he forgot that basic rule. In deriding members of the Administration and questioning his mission in Afghanistan, McChrystal undermined the authority of the office of the President, and President Obama was perfectly justified in removing him.

And yet some have grabbed McChrytal's lack of confidence in the government's plan for the war in Afghanistan as an opportunity to push their political agenda, denigrating our President as unfit to act as Commander-in-Chief on the basis that he never served active duty. You know, “it takes one to know one.” What a load of utter horse shit. Many Presidents have had to lead in wartime -- whether they started such wars or, as in Obama's case, inherited them from a previous Administration -- without benefit of first-hand battlefield experience; Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, come to mind -- so an argument that such an individual is of necessity incapable of commanding effectively is specious. Frankly, I think Lincoln and FDR did a pretty good job, but what do I know. It is ignorant and short-sighted to dismiss Obama’s potential military acumen out of hand. We don't yet know the answer to that question.

Americans want to believe a President has it all at his finger tips; that he is perfect and all-knowing, and possessed of magical powers. Newsflash! Presidents are human, not gods. They cannot be all things to all people, no matter how much we want that to be the case. Americans have to get over themselves and realize that we elect fallible individuals with their own unique sets of talents, and both respect them for their skills and powers of discernment and resist the urge to annihilate them when they need to rely more on others' advice for a complete understanding of a situation. That's why we have a cabinet, and a host of national advisors and committee leaders. No-one governs alone.

At the root of our recalcitrance lies the fact that, though many vehemently deny it, our attitude toward government is paternalistic. We love to vaunt ourselves as a group of individuals, ultimately responsible for ourselves, but in truth we are more likely to expect the other guy to pick up our slack. Let the government take care of it, but woe betide any perceived failures. Government should intuit all of our wishes and then grant them, one by one. Yes, Teabags, this means you, too. Blah, Blah, individual and blah, blah big government - bull -- you aren't interested in small government, just in having a government of whatever size it takes to cater to your peculiarities. “Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare” indeed.

Arizona's Goin' Rogue

So we all have heard about SB 1070 - the law Arizona has just passed, permitting law enforcement officers to challenge any individual at any time, demanding proof of identity.

To quote the New York Times: "The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."

Many support this law as at least some form of response to the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border in search of employment. (When they find it, it often involves working for very low wages cleaning the houses and mowing the lawns of 'real' Americans who are very happy to underpay someone to make themselves look pretty.)

I say this law is not the way to stem the tide. I say this law is dangerous.

Police states start somewhere, usually with a broadly worded law permitting law enforcement officers to demand that any citizen at any time to prove his identity. Such laws beg exploitation and can devastate a community. The direct objects of the law, i.e. Hispanics, are up in arms about the inevitable racial profiling and discrimination this law enables. However, let's not be naive. It will not be just Hispanics (or swarthy folk of other nations) who will face constant fear that at any time they might be pulled over. Who's to say that the police will stop there? Any of us is vulnerable to inconvenience at best, and harassment or false accusation at worst.

This law gives any individual policeman unwarranted authority over the populace. How can we be sure they will be capable of resisting the temptation to exploit their powers -- to harass people, punish irritating neighbors, extort goods and services, deny people access to facilities, or stalk individual objects of their desire? How can we adequately protect the populace against a 'rogue' cop who willfully accuses someone of having the ‘wrong’ papers, or insufficient i.d.? Who will supervise the police and ensure that they follow procedure and only demand i.d. for 'just cause?'

What will be the mechanism by which proof of citizenship will be accepted or denied? Will the policeman’s word be sufficient cause for legal action? What is the fate of the accused -- will they immediately be dragged off to jail and prosecuted? Immediately deported? What will be their recourse to defend themselves and prove their legitimacy? Will they have to go to court? If so, who pays? And what is the fate of the accused while they await their day in court? Will they be allowed to work?

This is loophole city, people. It is dangerously broad, giving a group of men and women (with guns!) the right to run roughshod over the community. We are all at risk with this law, as is the very idea of what it means to live freely.

There are legitimate issues with regard to illegal immigration which need careful attention. This law does not properly address them.

Debut

Watch this space.